Summary: A BPS-20 Office is aggrieved his nomination has been superseded by CSB. (a) Constitutional Law — Maintainability of Writ Petition — Bar of Jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution: The bar under Section 4 of the Federal Services Tribunal Act, 1973, does not apply where the dispute pertains to the fitness of a civil servant for promotion, rather than the terms and conditions of service. A civil servant has a fundamental right to fair consideration for promotion, which is distinct from the right to promotion itself. Consequently, the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 is not ousted in such cases. (Orya Maqbool Jan v. Federation of Pakistan, 2014 SCMR 817; Secretary Establishment Division v. Aftab Ahmed Maneka, 2015 SCMR 1006 applied). (b) Right to Fair Consideration for Promotion — Due Process and Article 10A of the Constitution: A civil servant has the right to be considered for promotion in a fair and just manner, which includes the right to confront and rebut any adverse material used against him. Consideration of intelligence agency reports at the CSB meeting without prior notice to the officer and without affording an opportunity to contest the allegations violates the principles of due process and fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution. (I.A. Sherwani v. Government of Pakistan, 1991 SCMR 1041; Tariq Aziz-ud-Din case, 2010 SCMR 1301 followed). (c) Central Selection Board (CSB) — Role in Promotion — Application of Arbitrary Discretion: Under Rule 18(3)(b) of the Civil Servants Promotion Rules, 2019 (CSPR), only 30 marks are allocated to the CSB’s collective judgment, while the remaining 70 marks are based on quantified performance evaluations (PERs and TERs). The CSB exceeded its authority by disregarding the quantification criteria and awarding disproportionate deductions based solely on intelligence reports. The CSB's decision violated the structured framework of the CSPR and constituted an arbitrary exercise of discretion. (Muhammad Zafeer Abbasi v. Government of Pakistan, 2003 PLC (CS) 503 applied). (d) Intelligence Reports in Promotion Decisions — Legality and Evidentiary Value: The use of intelligence reports that are not commissioned under applicable rules, lack verifiable evidence, and are not disclosed to the officer prior to the CSB meeting renders them legally infirm and ultra vires the fundamental rights to due process and information under the Constitution. The introduction of intelligence reports at the final stage of promotion consideration, without prior confrontation or verification, amounts to a denial of natural justice. (PIA v. Nasir Jamal Malik, 2001 SCMR 934; Abdul Hafeez Abbasi v. PIHC, 2002 SCMR 1034 followed). (e) Amendment to the Civil Servants Promotion Rules, 2019 — Validity and Scope of Rule 2(p) and Rule 4(5): The 2022 amendment to the CSPR introduced Rule 2(p) (defining Special Vetting Agency (SVA)) and Rule 4(5) (allowing CSB to consider intelligence reports of SVAs). However, these rules fail to specify the weightage of intelligence reports in the overall promotion criteria and do not provide procedural safeguards for officers to contest such reports. The vagueness of these rules exposes both the CSB and civil servants to arbitrary decisions, lack of transparency, and potential abuse. (f) Confidentiality of Intelligence Reports — Conflict with Fundamental Rights: There is no legal provision in the CSPR that grants confidentiality to intelligence reports used in promotion decisions. Any attempt to keep such reports secret violates the fundamental rights to information (Article 19A) and due process (Article 10A) of the Constitution. Information that adversely affects a person’s career cannot be classified as confidential without affording the affected individual an opportunity to contest it. (g) Failure to Provide a Transparent Promotion Process — Impact on Bureaucracy and Governance: The unfettered reliance on unverifiable intelligence reports in civil servant promotions creates a chilling effect, making officers susceptible to external pressures, political influence, and coercion by intelligence agencies. The lack of procedural safeguards for officers to defend against adverse reports undermines bureaucratic independence and good governance. (Managing Director (Power), WAPDA v. Muhammad Luqman, PLD 2003 SC 175 applied). (h) Remedy and Directions to the Central Selection Board (CSB): The CSB’s decision dated 01.08.2023 superseding the petitioner was set aside, and the immediately next CSB meeting was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s promotion to BPS-21 strictly in accordance with the marking and ranking criteria stipulated in CSPR, without reliance on the intelligence reports that were neither disclosed nor substantiated. -----Disposition: Writ Petition Allowed — Impugned CSB Decision dated 01.08.2023 Set Aside — Petitioner’s Case to be Reconsidered in the Next CSB Meeting in Accordance with CSPR, Excluding Intelligence Reports Not Previously Disclosed or Substantiated.

Summary: Background: This appeal, presided over by Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, originated from a decision made by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (Karachi Bench). The appellant, challenged the Tribunal?s judgment dismissing his appeal regarding promotional procedures within the Pakistan Public Works Department (PWD). ---Issues: 1- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal erred in not considering the appellant's previous service in the National Highways & Motorways Police for his promotion from Assistant Executive Engineer (BS-17) to Executive Engineer (BS-18) despite it being relevant under the applicable service rules. 2- The proper application of Statutory Instruction No.157 and the relevance of the appellant's successful departmental examination results for promotion. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Pakistan, after reviewing the arguments and the legal provisions involved, concluded that the Federal Service Tribunal failed to adequately consider essential elements of the case. Key issues included the incorrect assumption that the appellant's prior service was non-countable due to a perceived resignation rather than a transfer through proper channels, and the dismissal of departmental exam results pertinent to his promotion eligibility.The Court noted discrepancies in how the Tribunal handled the appellant's cumulative service duration across different government departments, which should have been recognized for promotion purposes as per the Establishment Code (2013 Edition), Statutory Instruction No.157. The Tribunal also neglected to address whether the appellant's earlier service could contribute to his eligibility for future promotions, a significant oversight given its impact on his career trajectory.Given these findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The Tribunal was instructed to reevaluate the appeal strictly in accordance with the law and to deliver a decision within three months. ----Citations/Precedents: Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973Statutory Instruction No. 157Establishment Code (2013 Edition)Services Tribunal Act, 1973Usman Ghani vs. Chief Post Master, GPO, Karachi (2022 SCMR 745)

Summary: Background: The Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) challenged the consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST), which had allowed appeals by employees working as Assistants in the FPSC. These employees contested the FPSC's recruitment process for the post of "Reader," which was regulated by the SRO No.338(I)/2009. This SRO prescribed that the vacancies for the post of Reader would be filled through promotion (40%) and initial appointment (60%). The employees had argued that the rules should be amended to allow promotion exclusively from the post of Assistant to the post of Reader. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether the FPSC's recruitment policy for the post of Reader, as laid down in the SRO of 2009, infringed upon the vested rights of the respondents. ----- 2) Whether the Federal Service Tribunal had the authority to direct the FPSC to amend its rules and policies regarding the appointment to the post of Reader. ----- 3) Whether the FPSC acted lawfully in dismissing the respondents' representations regarding the recruitment process. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: No Vested Right to Promotion: The Supreme Court held that the respondents (Assistants) did not have any vested right to be promoted to the post of Reader. Before the issuance of the SRO of 2009, no rules existed regarding the method of appointment for the post of Reader. The SRO of 2009, which introduced the 60% initial appointment rule, did not infringe upon any vested right of the respondents. ----- Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The Court found that the Federal Service Tribunal had overstepped its authority by directing the FPSC to amend its recruitment policy. The formulation of recruitment policies, including the criteria and method for appointment or promotion, falls within the exclusive domain of the competent authority. The Tribunal’s order to modify the SRO of 2009 was beyond its jurisdiction. ----- Lawfulness of FPSC’s Actions: The Supreme Court ruled that the FPSC had acted lawfully when it dismissed the respondents’ representations. The recruitment policy was based on principles of efficiency and fairness, and no valid grounds were presented to challenge the policy. The FPSC’s decision to implement the SRO of 2009 was not found to be arbitrary or unreasonable. ----- The Court concluded that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal was unsustainable and set it aside. The FPSC was allowed to proceed with filling the vacancies for the post of Reader in accordance with the SRO of 2009. ----- Citations/Precedents: Civil Servants Act, 1973 & Rules of 1973: Governs the terms and conditions of civil servants, including recruitment and promotion. SRO No.338(I)/2009: Introduced the recruitment policy for the post of Reader, establishing a 40% promotion and 60% initial appointment ratio. Mohammad Insha Ullah Case: Relied upon by the Tribunal, but the Court clarified that it was inapplicable to this case, as no vested right to promotion was involved. The appeals by the FPSC were allowed, and the Tribunal's judgment was set aside.

Summary: Issue:Whether the Federal Service Tribunal erred in directing the FPSC to modify its 2009 rules regarding appointments to the post of 'Reader'.----Holding:The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, allowing the FPSC to proceed with filling vacancies according to the 2009 SRO, emphasizing that the FPSC's policy and the SRO were lawful, reasonable, and did not infringe upon any vested rights.---Rationale:The Court found that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by questioning and seeking to alter the FPSC's policy on appointments. It was established that no rules governed the appointment to the post of Reader prior to the 2009 SRO, meaning no vested right to promotion existed for the respondents. The Court reiterated that the formulation of recruitment policies falls within the competent authority's domain and is not typically subject to judicial review unless it violates specific rights or laws.---Judgment:The Supreme Court converted the civil petitions into appeals and allowed them, thereby enabling the FPSC to fill the 'Reader' vacancies as per the criteria set out in the 2009 SRO.

Summary: [Discussion on Rule 3 & 12 of the APT Rules 1973, Section 7 of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance 1977; Sl.No.12 Estacode Edition 2007 as well as Sl.5.2, Estacode, Edition 2015. According to SRO No.1138(I)/2014, the experience gained in a regular fulltime paid job after obtaining the required qualification is reckoned for the post in question--The case revolves around a vacant position of Executive Director (BS-21) at the Federal Government Polyclinic (PGMI) in Islamabad. The respondent had applied for the position, passed the test conducted by FPSC, but was found deficient in post-qualification experience. He claimed that his experience prior to obtaining a degree in Public Health should be counted, but FPSC rejected his representation and review application. the Court referred to the relevant rules and regulations. It noted that the method of appointment, qualifications, and conditions for the post of Executive Director were laid down in a notification issued by the Ministry of Capital Administration and Development Division. The Court highlighted that the experience required for the post should be gained in a regular full-time paid job after obtaining the required qualification. The Court also referred to Rule 12 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1973, which states that the experience prescribed for initial appointment should be post-qualification experience unless otherwise specified. The Court emphasized that the post-qualification experience means experience gained in a regular full-time paid job, including on-the-job training, acquired after attaining the minimum advertised qualification. Based on its analysis of the relevant rules and regulations, the Supreme Court found that the respondent did not meet the required post-qualification experience for the Executive Director position. It concluded that the Islamabad High Court had overlooked the requirements and made an incorrect judgment. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Islamabad High Court. The impugned orders were reinstated, upholding FPSC's decision regarding the respondent's eligibility for the position.

Summary: The case involves an appeal against a judgment passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, regarding the entitlement to deputation allowance.The appellant, Secretary (M-V) Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad, challenged the tribunal's decision to grant deputation allowance to respondent No. 1, who had served in the Federal Board of Revenue on deputation from 1994 to 2001. The appellant argued that the respondent's claim was time-barred and that the deputation allowance was only applicable to fresh cases as per an Office Memorandum issued in 2007. The court examined the relevant Office Memoranda and previous judgments. It found that a previous judgment had established the entitlement to deputation allowance for all officers/officials transferred and posted on deputation basis, regardless of whether they were old or fresh cases. The court concluded that denying deputation allowance to certain individuals would violate the principle of consistency and Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan.Regarding the appellant's argument of laches (delay in filing the appeal), the court stated that in financial matters, limitation does not adversely affect the claimant's case. In light of the above, the court upheld the tribunal's decision, stating that it was well-reasoned and dismissing the appeal.

Summary: Issues:Whether Dr. Naveeda Rauf was entitled to full pay during her study leave.Whether Dr. Rauf's case was analogous to her colleagues, Dr. Salma Mehmood Malik and Dr. Shazia Mumtaz, who had been nominated by POF Hospital for their training and received different leave benefits.----Judgment:The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal erred in its judgment by granting Dr. Rauf full pay during her study leave, which contradicted the governing rules stipulating that Study Leave should be on half pay. The Court also differentiated Dr. Rauf's case from her colleagues, noting that they were officially nominated for their respective courses by POF Hospital, whereas Dr. Rauf applied for her training independently and even opted for part of her leave to be without pay. The Court held that Dr. Rauf's self-elected conditions and the distinguishable circumstances of her colleagues' leaves did not constitute discrimination against her.----Holding:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's judgments. It ruled that Dr. Rauf was entitled to half average salary during her study leave, as per the relevant rules, and clarified that her case was not similar to that of her colleagues who were sent for Mid-Career Courses by the Appellant.

Summary: Background:The petitioner, Salman Ali, was appointed as a Store Supervisor (BS-16) on a contract basis in the Works Department, GB PWD, in 2010. His contract was extended multiple times, with the last extension being on November 17, 2016, until the arrival of new incumbents. Despite his contract being valid until the arrival of new incumbents, the respondents discontinued his contract prematurely.----Issues:Whether the discontinuation of the petitioner's contract was lawful.Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of his contract until the arrival of new incumbents.Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of his unpaid salary from July 2017 to October 2018.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found that the petitioner's contract had been illegally discontinued by the respondents, as the contract was valid until the arrival of new incumbents. The Performance Evaluation Committee had recommended the extension of the petitioner's contract based on his good performance. Therefore, the court directed the respondents to extend the petitioner's contract as Store Supervisor (BS-16) until a new incumbent is appointed through FPSC and to release the unpaid salary from July 2017 to October 2018.----Citations/Precedents:Office Order No.E-1/101/Admin 2/2010 dated 25th November, 2010Services, General Administration and Cabinet Department letter No.SO(S)-I-1(4}/2018 dated 23-10-2018Notification No.PS-1(1)/2017-CS dated 22nd May, 2017Performance Evaluation Committee report dated 25th June, 2018Performance Evaluation Committee minutes of meeting dated 13-7-2018

Summary: [Marks when to be rounded off - the maxim expressio unis est exclusion alterius i.e., the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of the other thing] This case revolves around the rounding off of marks obtained in the psychological assessment of candidates in the competitive examination for the post of Deputy Prosecutor General (BS-18) conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC). The appellant, Mian Shaukat Ali, missed the merit by a margin of 0.5 marks and argued that if his marks in the psychological assessment (2.5 out of 5 marks) were rounded off to 3, his total marks would equal the marks of the last selected candidate. He contended that psychological assessment is part of the interview, and as the PPSC policy allows rounding off for interview marks, the same should be applicable to psychological assessment marks.The PPSC countered that their policy explicitly provides rounding off for interview marks but not for psychological assessment marks. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's plea, and the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court upheld the Lahore High Court's decision, stating that the PPSC policy specifically allows rounding off for interview marks but not for psychological assessment marks. The Court emphasized that the express mention of rounding off for the interview and the absence of such a provision for psychological assessment indicate the PPSC's intention not to extend the benefit of rounding off to psychological assessment marks. The Court also highlighted that rounding off can significantly impact total marks when only 5 marks are allocated for the psychological assessment, making it inappropriate in this context.The appeal was dismissed, and the Court declined to interfere with the Lahore High Court's decision. However, the Court expressed concern over the same lawyer, Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Mohal, representing opposing parties in connected matters, stressing that such conduct is not appropriate for an advocate.

Summary: The Federal Public Service Commission shall not fill up vacancies created As a result of non-joinder of a selectee in order to maintain a balance and provide a fair chance to candidate, who has passed a competitive examination but has failed to be selected on merits and at the same time, prevent the adverse fall out of maintaining a waiting list for long period.